Hacker News Reader

Comment by ptaffs | Hacker News Reader

Your response sounds super unsympathetic, but your side note hints at some actual understanding of the situation. Briefly, what should be happening?

View on HN

Obviously, I do not want people starve or freeze to death. I guess I should have made that more clear?

But, the term refugee has a very particular meaning and comes with a particular set of rights, re:the UN. See: http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c125.html

I have no expertise in policy-level decisions, my volunteer work is on a very local level. I do not know what should happen.

The French and UK governments are notoriously keen to bat this political ball aggressively back and forth. Any special agreement between them to cope with this specific situation will likely take months of negotiation.

Add to this that the UK government is posturing over seceding from both Europe and European Human Rights, and it adds up to a sorry situation.

Out of curiosity, what are the "obligations" on these asylum seekers? Should they seek asylum in the first country they can? Why are they not at liberty to travel as far as they are permitted? I thought in fact that this was encouraged by some nations, perhaps making them pawns in national border politics. Their situation feels like "kettling", with The Channel blocking further movement.

Also, what proportion of people fleeing Syria seek asylum in which nations? Is there really a preponderance of them at the French/UK border?

> Out of curiosity, what are the "obligations" on these asylum seekers?

By law, asylum seekers are obligated to register in the first EU country they arrive. Failing to do so results in illegal entry and/or stay and is grounds for deportation.

That's what the law says. Whether it's morally right or wrong is another matter.

You don't have to be sympathetic to be factual. It's not wrong to be unsympathetic and has no bearing of the person in question commenting the refugee situation.

Sympathy, like Willpower is a commodity that can run out. Be careful on what you use it on.

I find it deeply disturbing, that comment dealing with systemic problem is judged by apparent feelings of the commenter.

In your view, is it less disturbing when systemic human problems are worked out without a shred of human compassion? Why or why not?

First of all, perceived lack of compassion and actual lack of compassion are two different things. Especially over the internet.

Secondly, judging comments solely by perceived compassion is obviously going to bias the decisions. Things like reason and scale easily get forgotten if compassion is the only criteria.

Thirdly blaming people for not feeling the politically correct emotions is some hardcore thought police shit.

Fourthly compassion is naturally biased towards obviously pathetic people who are physically close. Somebody coming from Uganda might consider Calais a complete non-problem. Someone living in Scotland might find local stray cats more compelling target for charity than any person anywhere.

And there are significant populations who could contribute to the discussion, but are unable to either feel compassion or express it. (For example high functioning autists.)

I really don't mind someone being compassionate while dealing with systemic human problems. But if it's somekind of requirement, it seems like really bad starting point.

Don't surgeons work best when they can treat their patient as an it instead of a person? One of the reasons behind banning someone from doing surgery on a loved one is because they have a strong pre-existing emotional connection that reduces their effectiveness, no?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com